Who
was S.R. Bommai?
S.R. Bommai was the Chief
Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988 and
April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356
of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a mostly
common mode to keep Opposition parties at bay. The dismissal was on grounds
that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections
engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then Governor P.
Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in
the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy of the resolution
passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.
What
happened then?
Bommai
went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule.
First he moved the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his writ petition.
Then he moved the Supreme Court.
What
did the Supreme Court do?
The
case, which would go on to become one of the most cited whenever hung
Assemblies were returned, and parties scrambled to for a government, took
almost five years to see a logical conclusion. On March 11, 1994, a nine-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a
way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article
356 by spelling out restrictions.
What
did the judgement say?
The
verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government
is not absolute. The verdict said the President should exercise the power only
after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of
Parliament. Till then, the Court said, the President can only suspend the
Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of Constitution relating to
the Legislative Assembly. "The dissolution of Legislative Assembly is not
a matter of course. It should be resorted to only where it is found necessary
for achieving the purposes of the Proclamation," the Court said.
What
happens if the Presidential proclamation is not approved by the Parliament?
"In
case both Houses of Parliament disapprove or do not approve the Proclamation,
the Proclamation lapses at the end of the two-month period. In such a case, the
government which was dismissed revives. The Legislative Assembly,which may have
been kept in suspended animation gets reactivated," the Court said. Also
the Court made it amply clear that a Presidential Proclamation under Article
356 is is subject to judicial review.
What
is the significance of the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case?
The
case put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments by a hostile
Central government. And the verdict also categorically ruled that the floor of
the Assembly is the only forum that should test the majority of the government
of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor, who is often
referred to as the agent of the Central government. "The Chief Minister of
every State who has to discharge his constitutional functions will be in
perpetual fear of the axe of Proclamation falling on him because he will not be
sure whether he will remain in power or not and consequently he has to stand up
every time from his seat without properly discharging his constitutional obligations
and achieving the desired target in the interest of the State," the Court
said.
When
was the verdict’s impact was first seen?
In one
of the first instances of the impact of the case, the A.B. Vajpayee government
in 1999 was forced reinstate a government it dismissed. The Rabri Devi
government, which was sacked on February 12, 1999 was reinstated on March 8,
1999 when it became clear that the Central government would suffer a defeat in
the Rajya Sabha over the issue.
And
later whenever the case of a hung Assembly, and the subsequent exercise of
government formation, came up, the Bommai case would be cited, making it one of
the most quoted verdicts in the country's political history.
No comments:
Post a Comment